Is it true that if there are any rules ML would be breaking by modifying the 1D X, it would be the same as when modifying the 5D3?

Of course, IANAL....but if ML is doing a clean room reverse engineer of the hardware, and are not enabling the un DRM'd use of copyright material, and if they are to a lessor note, not breaking any encrypted software owned by Canon on the hardware, they they should be perfectly within their legal rights to 'hack' the hardware and run whatever software they want on it.

You buy a car...and you can do pretty much what you wish with it, and the manufacturer can't touch you for those actions. Largely, Canon can't stop you from doing what you wish with the hardware once you buy it.If you want to install and run completely new software on it, your perfectly legal to do so.

There is no difference I can see, between doing it on a 5D3 or a 1Dxyz.

However, as I posted before, often it doesn't matter if the company has legal standing or not, they can bring suit, and it is a contest on who has the deepest pockets for $$ that wins in the end, by dragging on the case endlessly.

But we need to remember, that at least to date....when you BUY hardware, nothing prevents you from opening it up, playing with it as you see fit or enhancing or destroying it.

It is YOURS.

Disseminating information or means for others, as long as it doesn't involve enabling copyright infringement, should be perfectly legal too.

Well first of all the 1DC is just Canon's hack on the 1DX. I don't buy that there is some required heatsink, that's window dressing. They don't want 3rd parties competing for sales of hacks at that price point ($5,000+).

The second thing is the 1DX has a proper downsampler for its video rather than the 5D3's pixel binning. Which is necessary given the sensor dimensions (unless they wanted to go back to the hideous 1st gen line skipping). And so a hacked 1DX recording less lossy compression (with more actually distinguishable pixels, and more luma/color levels, in more situations) would give the C series a run for its money while this 5D3 hack is just going to please the ambitious kids that think they're getting a bargain. For those kids $3000 for a 5D3 is a lot of money and about all Canon can expect out of them. But people who will buy a 1DX are professionals that will prefer going C-series and Canon wants to usher them that way (for their own benefit I may add) rather than have them confused by kids and their hacks.

Perhaps you are right, but this would be similar to let's say...

BMW suing tuning companies for selling a $500 tune for their turbo-charged 335i cars, giving it a potential performance boost over their top-of-the-line M3 (which costs like $20k more). Does it cannabalize the sales for the M3? Sure. But people still buy the M3, and people still tune their 335i cars.

But, perhaps that analogy isn't equivalent, since the M3 also has suspension upgrades, etc. But, wouldn't that also be similar to the speculated heat sink upgrades on the 1D C, for example?

However, as I posted before, often it doesn't matter if the company has legal standing or not, they can bring suit, and it is a contest on who has the deepest pockets for $$ that wins in the end, by dragging on the case endlessly.

Ahh, yes... you are right about that. I didn't mean to go off on a tangent here, I was just curious if anyone knew why Canon was hell bent on protecting their 1D line as opposed to their more popular 5D line, that's all.

That being said, this is really cool news, and I hope that Canon doesn't curtail this project.

So let's be clear... ML does not modify the camera firmware with perhaps the exception that it needs to be able to boot from the card. ML software rides on top of the firmware so it's considered and Add-on.

I think it's because the two cameras are purchased by different types of people. I own a 5D3, but would not dream of buying a 1D X or 1D C...if I needed to shoot in 4K, I'd rather rent (probably a RED Scarlet or the upcoming BMCC Pro).

Canon understands that a hacked 5D3 will see a surge in sales due to Magic Lantern, but they also understand that a hack in the 1D X to match the 1D C specs would result in a drop in purchases for that camera.

Say what you will about Canon, but they're not idiots.

So, you're telling me that a hacked 5D3 won't cannibalize sales of their higher-end cameras and video recorders? I find that hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe that a large number of 1D C cameras are being sold, as opposed to the 1D X. People who need the 1D C to shoot video all day long will continue to buy the 1D C. People who want to occasionally shoot video on the 1D X should be allowed to use the potentially more unstable hack if they want.

Is it true that if there are any rules ML would be breaking by modifying the 1D X, it would be the same as when modifying the 5D3?

So let's be clear... ML does not modify the camera firmware with perhaps the exception that it needs to be able to boot from the card. ML software rides on top of the firmware so it's considered and Add-on.

I think it's because the two cameras are purchased by different types of people. I own a 5D3, but would not dream of buying a 1D X or 1D C...if I needed to shoot in 4K, I'd rather rent (probably a RED Scarlet or the upcoming BMCC Pro).

Canon understands that a hacked 5D3 will see a surge in sales due to Magic Lantern, but they also understand that a hack in the 1D X to match the 1D C specs would result in a drop in purchases for that camera.

Say what you will about Canon, but they're not idiots.

So, you're telling me that a hacked 5D3 won't cannibalize sales of their higher-end cameras and video recorders? I find that hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe that a large number of 1D C cameras are being sold, as opposed to the 1D X. People who need the 1D C to shoot video all day long will continue to buy the 1D C. People who want to occasionally shoot video on the 1D X should be allowed to use the potentially more unstable hack if they want.

Is it true that if there are any rules ML would be breaking by modifying the 1D X, it would be the same as when modifying the 5D3?

Sure and good point!!

However, if ML changed and became a firmware replacement....there is nothing illegal about that at all.

(How the holy heck is that hackers with no documentation or even access to Digic can pull this off in like 3 weeks and Canon has had this locked away for over a year??

Man if they released the camera like this this thing would've still be permanently out of stock to this very day and made 5D2 sales look like a joke! There wasn't even remote competition for this when the 5D3 had first been released! Black Magic may not even have gotten off the ground.)

So, you're telling me that a hacked 5D3 won't cannibalize sales of their higher-end cameras and video recorders? I find that hard to believe.

What I'm saying is that they are different cameras for different types of users. I think that maybe we could say that the $5k price is the demarcation line (some would argue that it's $3k). Pretty much every indie filmmaker that I know owns a 5D2, a 7D or one of the cheaper models. Practically nobody that I know owns a 1D C, a C300, or a RED (unless they're a rental house). I think Canon understands this market demarcation, and they know that a hacked 5D3 will not cannibalize sales of their higher end cameras...we were never going to buy them anyway. They also know that higher end cinematographers don't really want hacked gear, people who shoot commercials or medium to high budget films use Alexas, or RED's or the 1D C, and those guys will not be "tempted" by a hack...no way.

As I said, I think Canon is many things (not all positive), but I don't think they're idiots.

I think a raw shooting DSLR is a very different beast to the C100 / C300, and to be honest I don't think many pros will be making the switch.

I wouldn't yet turn up to a pressured commercial shoot with a hack and raw though - asking for problems.

At the moment raw isn't practical for most projects where practicality / routine reliability comes ahead of image quality / art. The C100 is a very different camera to the 5D Mark III ergonomically and that more so than image quality is why pros love it so much. The broadcast ready codec on the C300 is also a big thing and raw is not a broadcast acquisition format because you cannot edit it fast or just drop it into the BBCs news workflow! The amount of data it generates is phenomenal.

I think the Blackmagic Cinema Camera now has a stern rival, but the Cinema EOS stuff plays in a different part of the park.

I won't be shooting my own short film / music videos on C300 now I have this on the 5D Mark III though. I am an image quality junkie and that matters more to me than the practicalities of getting it working smoothly, and delivering a quick commercial project.

The A/B test to do is the RAW version vs. the HDMI out using Cinestyle, recorded to the Ninja 2 in 220Mbps ProRes HQ and graded in post with the proper LUT. Because anyone who cares about getting the most IQ out of the camera will be using that setup (or something very similar) rather than internal...of course the RAW is going to kill the miserable internal codec.

And BTW, all my testing has repeatedly shown ALL-I and IPB are 100% identical IQ on the 5D3 internal. Haven't seen anything credible to refute that...I think it's just Mbps marketing to counter the GH2 hack.

This is all beautiful, and I'm very happy for 5DMarkIII owners, but... what about Canon 1Dx Double with price, and still with no Canon or ML firmware to some major upgrade in video for our expensive camera!?Now, 5DMarkIII will have better video capabilities, better picture in video, raw video recording... and 1Dx - NO !Great, just great... that's why 1Dx cost more than 2 x 5DMarkIII so we could have less quality for double the price.Wonderful... beautiful... great...

The only reason ML doesn't release for the 1Dx is because Canon have made a very bold, public statement, that if any third party modifies any camera in the EOS 1 line at a software level then they will feel the might of Canon's entire legal team

I'm not disputing what you say about Canon and their desire to protect their intellectual property but is it not a case of, I bought the product therefore I can do whatever I like with it? Sure, if it were rented that's a different case altogether but isn't it a bit like someone buying a family car and turning it into a monster truck? The manufacturer no longer owns the vehicle therefore as long as the owner is aware the warrantly is toast then who gives a crap?

Let's say the hacked firmware gets out into the wild - how could Canon know the "end product" video comes from a hacked camera unless they had access to the raw data? If you see a video on TV or the web, can you tell what it was shot on just by the look of it?

I think that it's a bit naïve to think that Canon's R&D team is not fully aware of what exactly their cameras are capable of producing. They have been doing this a long time and I'm sure there's a room full of engineers laughing amongst themselves every time one of these "hidden jewels" are revealed to the masses.If Canon bombarded us with all of the OEM features presently available, plus all of the things that the Camera's internals/sensor is capable of doing (ML additions included), I believe we would whine more because we would expect more with every camera release.To me, ML is the old "unlock your GeForce making it a Quadro" trick. Sure the ability is there to make the GeForce graphics card do more than it's advertised/marketed to do, but there are subtle reasons that it's not the same thing as physically having the Quadro graphics card. Just because there is no commercial EOS camera with all of the bells & whistles ML adds to the mix, doesn't mean that Canon doesn't have hardware in the Government or Aerospace sector that we don't have privy to.Or maybe they have begun to purposefully leave a lot of these features out because the wonderful ML crew are doing what they are doing and what better test bed than us consumers using our cameras that we paid for with our money, providing massive amounts of end user data and feedback. If someone has a problem with a ML feature, the world knows and an update may come out fixing the issue. Canon knows this too but it doesn't cost them a penny to fix because they technically do not support said feature.So, when 5 different cameras come out over the next x amount of years carrying the DiGiC 6/7/whatever processor, all with varying amounts of features, I won't be surprised in the least to see some polished ML originals in my cameras menu.For the record, I love ML & I did hack my GeForce back in the day. Long live the hacker!